Jump to content


Road resurfacing, Amey & Streets Ahead

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, rudds1 said:

Are amey still doing road resurfacing. Not seen any going on for a good while now 

They're past the initial 5 year blitz (apart from a few roads delayed by the tree felling protests such as Western Road). In theory in they're in the 20 year maintenance part of the contract now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They resurfaced Yew Trees Lane at Bolsterstone just before the bike races ,a few months later they re-resurfaced it claiming faulty materials , pot holes are appearing again in the same section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I know that snow and ice cause issues but the amount of damage on some roads I saw today looks almost like they need a full resurface. Am obviously  not qualified to say its been done on the cheap but many roads in the Peaks exposed to serious weather every winter hold up much better which leads me to believe it may have.The roads around Ringinglow village are particularly bad with holes everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dave_the_m said:

They're past the initial 5 year blitz (apart from a few roads delayed by the tree felling protests such as Western Road). In theory in they're in the 20 year maintenance part of the contract now.

Better quality initial work would minimise the demands on maintenance.

We are all (apart from some profiting from our taxes) the losers for allowing these standards to be downgraded.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Fudbeer said:

but the amount of damage on some roads I saw today looks almost like they need a full resurface.

we see the damage to the surface. 

 

we don't see that the road-bed on our old roads often isn't strong enough - for modern heavy vehicles, which causes the road-bed to flex, cracking the surface.

 

re-surfacing is a waste of time without fundamentally strengthening the road foundation below.

 

it's about time we started taxing vehicles by weight : a 2te 4WD does 16x the damage of a 1te hatchback.

Edited by ads36

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, enntee said:

Better quality initial work would minimise the demands on maintenance.

We are all (apart from some profiting from our taxes) the losers for allowing these standards to be downgraded.

 

The contract which Amey have with SCC stipulates that the roads are brought up to an agreed standard within an agreed investment period (5 years). After that they have to maintain them to an agreed standard for the remainder of the contract (20 years). For this they receive an agreed annual fee.

 

Amey will have worked out what they think is the most profitable way for them to fulfill the contractual requirements. That might well mean that instead of doing the traditional full depth reconstruction,  they decide to do a thin resurfacing job more than once over the contract period.  It's largely up to them how they do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

The contract which Amey have with SCC stipulates that the roads are brought up to an agreed standard within an agreed investment period (5 years). After that they have to maintain them to an agreed standard for the remainder of the contract (20 years). For this they receive an agreed annual fee.

 

Amey will have worked out what they think is the most profitable way for them to fulfill the contractual requirements. That might well mean that instead of doing the traditional full depth reconstruction,  they decide to do a thin resurfacing job more than once over the contract period.  It's largely up to them how they do it.

Meanwhile drivers have to foot the bill due to damage caused by the road surface not being up to a proper standard. Look at the state of the parkway where in places it'd do less damage driving at 50 mph through the streets of Aleppo in late 2016. 

It's come to the point that I have separate insurance on my car now specifically for replacement of tyres, wheels and suspension components for damage caused by poor roads. I've had to do this because just ONE shock absorber on my car is an eye-watering £605 (factory original, LINK) and have to be replaced in axle pairs. 

It'll be fun to watch the council squirm when they're presented with a £4500 + legal costs bill by my insurer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

The contract which Amey have with SCC stipulates that the roads are brought up to an agreed standard within an agreed investment period (5 years). After that they have to maintain them to an agreed standard for the remainder of the contract (20 years). For this they receive an agreed annual fee.

 

Amey will have worked out what they think is the most profitable way for them to fulfill the contractual requirements. That might well mean that instead of doing the traditional full depth reconstruction,  they decide to do a thin resurfacing job more than once over the contract period.  It's largely up to them how they do it.

We know all that, but it does not change the fact that it does not produce the best result for those that are paying for it.

It represents poor professionalism and raises questions of competence in several quarters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Resident said:

Meanwhile drivers have to foot the bill due to damage caused by the road surface not being up to a proper standard. Look at the state of the parkway where in places it'd do less damage driving at 50 mph through the streets of Aleppo in late 2016. 

It's come to the point that I have separate insurance on my car now specifically for replacement of tyres, wheels and suspension components for damage caused by poor roads. I've had to do this because just ONE shock absorber on my car is an eye-watering £605 (factory original, LINK) and have to be replaced in axle pairs. 

It'll be fun to watch the council squirm when they're presented with a £4500 + legal costs bill by my insurer. 

Keep us posted on that one, @Resident- it will be an eye-opener.

11 minutes ago, enntee said:

We know all that, but it does not change the fact that it does not produce the best result for those that are paying for it.

It represents poor professionalism and raises questions of competence in several quarters.

Agreed @enntee, but I'm sure someone will roll up with the excuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Resident said:

Meanwhile drivers have to foot the bill due to damage caused by the road surface not being up to a proper standard. Look at the state of the parkway where in places it'd do less damage driving at 50 mph through the streets of Aleppo in late 2016. 

It's come to the point that I have separate insurance on my car now specifically for replacement of tyres, wheels and suspension components for damage caused by poor roads. I've had to do this because just ONE shock absorber on my car is an eye-watering £605 (factory original, LINK) and have to be replaced in axle pairs. 

It'll be fun to watch the council squirm when they're presented with a £4500 + legal costs bill by my insurer. 

Take a spin around Kenwood, nr Netheredge. You'll be longing to be back on the Parkway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ads36 said:

we see the damage to the surface. 

 

we don't see that the road-bed on our old roads often isn't strong enough - for modern heavy vehicles, which causes the road-bed to flex, cracking the surface.

 

re-surfacing is a waste of time without fundamentally strengthening the road foundation below.

 

it's about time we started taxing vehicles by weight : a 2te 4WD does 16x the damage of a 1te hatchback.

Yes. The so-called "Chelsea tractors", I think. I've yet to understand why they're needed in a city.

 

Wear and tear on road surfaces is, however, not really a new concept.

(And 'cheapest' does not always equate to 'best value for [taxpayers'] money!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jeffrey Shaw said:

Yes. The so-called "Chelsea tractors", I think. I've yet to understand why they're needed in a city.

 

Wear and tear on road surfaces is, however, not really a new concept.

(And 'cheapest' does not always equate to 'best value for [taxpayers'] money!)

The 'cars have got heavier' argument doesn't hold much weight (excuse the pun). 

 

Most of the damaged roads are frequently used by buses, vans and HGVs. 

 

The roads should be built to those standards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.